Observing how iterative learning and adaptation contribute to Integrated Landscape Management

Progress might require a winding path in politically sensitive, ecologically important, and operationally challenging settings. Recent experiences from our landscapes in Latin America and the Caribbean illustrate how adaptive learning offers a way forward.

Over recent months, the LFF Central Component in Latin America has been collaborating with EU-funded Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) initiatives to gain a deeper understanding of how different dimensions of ILM function in practice, particularly iterative and adaptive learning.

Iterative and adaptive learning are key characteristics of effective ILM initiatives. This is because landscapes are highly complex and dynamic socio-ecological systems with multiple and dynamic interacting elements and a high degree of uncertainty about how they will evolve.

A socio-ecological system is an integrated system of people and nature, where ecological and social components are interdependent and co-evolve through feedbacks.”

Elinor Ostrom, 2009

As we described in our Landscapes in Practice guideline, iterative learning is a continuous, cyclical process of learning through action, reflection, and adjustment. It involves testing ideas or strategies, observing the results, gathering feedback, and then refining approaches based on what was learned. Rather than following a fixed plan, iterative learning enables adaptation over time, particularly in complex or dynamic environments. Without iterative learning processes, initiatives can fall into a trap of static planning and top-down technocratic fixes. This process of identifying best practices and improving over time is often described as a ‘learning by doing’ approach.

To encourage ILM proponents to reflect on the role of iterative and adaptive learning in their work, the LFF team has been facilitating reflective activities with these ILM practitioners, supporting them as they learn from their own experiences.

Facilitation has included group exchanges, workshops, bilateral discussions, and peer exchanges across regions.


In November 2024, the Central Component organized an Iterative Learning Webinar, which brought together colleagues from multiple ILM projects, including Paisajes Andinos (Ecuador), Mi Biósfera (Honduras), the OECS-ILM Project (Organization of Eastern Caribbean States), and Paisajes Sostenibles (Colombia).

This gathering focused on knowledge sharing and dialogue among ILM practitioners in the region to highlight practical solutions and approaches for iterative learning and encouraging reflection on governance, institutionalization, and stakeholder engagement for adaptive management.

LFF partners emphasized the critical role of cross-sector partnerships in advancing sustainable landscape outcomes. Speakers stressed that building and maintaining these partnerships – especially across governments, communities, and NGOs – is not always easy, especially amid changing political and financial contexts. Yet, it is precisely this collaborative spirit that enables long-term impact, and landscape approaches are, by nature, long-term investments.

Khalil Walji, representing the LFF Central Component, noted: “Through our Joint Reflection and Learning Missions, we’ve seen firsthand how collaborative learning can lead to significant improvements in land restoration efforts.”

Participants exchanged fresh ideas on innovative strategies to bolster these alliances, such as participatory governance models and capacity-building initiatives, ultimately highlighting the essential role of cooperation in driving sustainable outcomes in landscape management.

The webinar highlighted LFF’s strategy of fostering collaboration among projects to improve practices and outcomes by learning from one another.

A common thread among the experiences was the value of integrating local knowledge into landscape management strategies and giving voice and ownership of the process to local resource managers.  

“The integration of local knowledge into our practices is essential for achieving sustainability in landscape management,” emphasized Peter Cronkleton, LFF Scientist and moderator of the session.


Lessons from the field: How has adaptation manifested across LFF landscapes?

EcuadorPaisajes Andinos

During our March (2025) visit to Ecuador, the Paisajes Andinos team recounted the approach they had used to support community conservation of a threatened páramo landscape in the Simiátug parish. Rather than imposing a predefined conservation model, the project supported local stakeholders in exploring governance mechanisms through exchange visits and dialogues. They had initiated a process where communities visited others to learn from their experiences, which helped target communities surrounding the paramo learn from their experiences. This, in turn, enabled the communities surrounding the targeted páramos to identify potential governance mechanisms that conserved resources and secured rights. The project had also invested time in building trust between the communities and Ecuador’s Ministry of Environment. As a result, the communities had decided that a mechanism known as a Hydrological Protection Area was best suited to their needs and had joined local and national government, NGOs and FAO in a collaborative effort to demarcate and develop it.

Colombia – Paisajes Sostenibles

During an April 2025 learning mission to Santa Marta, Colombia, staff from the Paisajes Sostenibles partner INVEMAR recounted their experience working with fisherfolk in the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta (CGSM). In response to observed declines in the blue crab stock due to overfishing, technicians introduced innovative traps that included openings allowing juvenile crabs to escape. During monitoring visits, the technicians noticed that many fishers had blocked the openings and continued harvesting crabs regardless of the stage of growth. As a result, the INVEMAR technicians changed their strategy and implemented a participatory experiment with fishers to monitor harvests using these innovative traps. Through this process, fishers realized that concentrating only on larger crabs would not diminish their harvest but would ensure more crabs for the future.  Acceptance of the modified traps expanded because fishers not only now saw how they worked but also felt ownership, as this was a solution they had validated.

Brazil-Paraguay – Cerrado Resiliente

During our May 2025 visit to Paraguay, technicians for the CERES (Cerrado Resiliente) project used a flexible planning approach that allowed them to facilitate iterative learning cycles with stakeholders in the Agua Dulce zone around the Monumento Natural Cerro Chovoreca. The project’s initial proposals (e.g., formal biological corridors) had proven unviable due to conflicting interests among stakeholders. Rather than insisting on these original ideas, the project shifted focus to socializing the idea of connectivity through maps and dialogue, gaining legitimacy without resistance. Through this process, they were able to aggregate local interest around a strategy to demarcate the Cerro Chovoreca conservation area, which would allow local landowners to also clarify their property boundaries. This reframing helped shift attention from a potentially divisive intervention to a collaborative vision of landscape governance. Collaboration among government agencies, local communities, the private sector and NGOs resulted in the institutionalization of landscape governance in the frontier area. In short, adaptive learning ensured progress in a politically sensitive, ecologically important, and operationally challenging setting.

Iterative learning is emerging as a powerful driver of action across LFF landscapes by enabling projects to remain responsive, adaptive, and grounded in local realities. Rather than relying on rigid plans, project teams embrace flexible, feedback-driven approaches that allow them to learn alongside communities, adjust strategies based on real-time insights, and co-create solutions that are both effective and locally legitimate. Whether through peer exchanges in Ecuador, participatory experiments in Colombia, or adaptive planning in Paraguay, this continuous learning process is helping overcome political, ecological, and social challenges, translating reflection into tangible progress on the ground.


Learn more

Newsletter #5 | August 2023

Welcome to our Latin American and Caribbean special edition newsletter, where we delve into the transformative power of Integrated Landscape Management

Clockwise from top right: Les Pitons and town of Soufriere in Saint Lucia, OECS. Aerial view of Bahía Negra town, on the banks of the Paraguay River. Organic panela production and donkeys in Ecuador. Cattle rancher in San Ignacio de Velasco in Bolivia. Cattle ranch  in Honduras. Signage in Ecuador. Photos by Peter Cronkleton and Natalia Cisneros/CIFOR-ICRAF. 

View or download more photos and videos from our image archive here.


REFLECTIONS FROM THE FIELD

ILM in LAC

The Central Component’s Natalia Cisneros meets with Mi Biósfera team members during our learning visit to Honduras. Photo by Peter Cronkleton/CIFOR-ICRAF 

We, the Central Component, see six critical elements in the ILM process. To see them in action, you need look no further than our programme’s remarkable Latin American and Caribbean projects, which have embraced integrated landscape approaches to revolutionize land use practices, conserve biodiversity and foster sustainable development.


KNOWLEDGE

Can ILM contribute to sustainable cattle ranching?  And vice versa?

Chiquitanía landscape of Bolivia. Image by GIZ/Paisajes Resilientes 

In recent years, strategies to promote sustainable alternatives to conventional ranching have emerged, aiming to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, reduce deforestation, conserve vulnerable ecosystems, and mitigate impacts from cattle production. Achieving these objectives often involves endorsing enhanced practices, implementing robust monitoring systems, and fostering collaboration among various stakeholders. ILM could enable pathways to achieving impact at scale.


Landscape Learning Session #2: Criteria, Indicators & Tools of ILM

Watch the webinar

Despite its application over the past few decades in various contexts to harmonize conflicting land management goals such as development and conservation, there remains no systematic framework to guide the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of ILM projects. 

We set out to fix that, conducting a global review to propose such a framework. This learning event presented the results of this review and delved into two examples of monitoring tools applied in ILM projects. 


RESOURCES

MSF fatigue? How to design for context, inclusion and effectiveness

A tale of two Brazilian states leads us to really useful tips to design meaningful, inclusive platforms for transformation. In the 1990s and early 2000s – in response to calls for participatory land-use planning and concerns about deforestation – Brazil’s state governments began to carry out Ecological-Economic Zoning processes to  collectively lay out land-use plans that were inclusive and sustainable. These processes were mandated to be developed and implemented using multi-stakeholder participatory mechanisms. 

Two states ended up with very different results. Explore the lessons to be learned through this curation of research and interviews, and download at-a-glance factsheets with tips on how to how to manage power, politics and participation in your own multi-stakeholder processes. 

We often take too much for granted in MSPs. Some considerations are simple – like changing where the platform is held, or adjusting seating arrangements – and some require deeper strategic thinking. Our research has unearthed a host of practical steps that convenors can take to help empower marginalised stakeholders and create lasting impact. 

 Anne Larson on CIFOR-ICRAF’s info sheets and how-to guides

Power, politics and participation in multi-stakeholder processes

A tale of two Brazilian states leads us to really useful tips to design meaningful, inclusive platforms for transformation.
Read at CIFOR-ICRAF’S Forests News

Participatory processes do not guarantee equality, as the interactions within them and in the wider contexts where they are enacted are shaped by power relations that define what kinds of actions are possible,

CIFOR-ICRAF scientists Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti, Anne Larson, and Nicole Heise Vigil in a 2021 study on how and why organisers plan their MSPs.

Here’s a cautionary tale for MSF convenors

In the 1990s and early 2000s – in response to calls for participatory land-use planning and concerns about deforestation – Brazil’s state governments began to carry out Ecological-Economic Zoning (ZEE in Portuguese) processes with the aim of collectively laying out land-use plans that were inclusive and sustainable. These processes were mandated to be developed and implemented using multi-stakeholder participatory mechanisms.

The two ended up with very different results, as described in this paper.

Acre and Mato Grosso are two landlocked Brazilian states, both of which contain part of the Amazonian rainforest. Acre’s ZEE map, completed in 2007, was widely hailed for advancing collective benefits and sustainability. For Mato Grosso, in contrast, the ZEE process was disastrous: it reflected deep-seated social and political conflicts, and to this day the state does not have a ZEE map, despite a number of valiant attempts by different parties to develop one. So, why did the two processes, which fell under the same federal mandate, turn out so differently?

This excellent article from CIFOR-ICRAF’s Forests News, not only outlines the different results and reasons behind them, but also provides links to really useful tools and resources to enable you to design and implement a multi-stakeholder process that’s far more like that of Acre, “widely hailed for advancing collective benefits and sustainability”, than of Mato Grosso, where “the ZEE process was disastrous: it reflected deep-seated social and political conflicts, and to this day the state does not have a ZEE map, despite a number of valiant attempts by different parties to develop one.”

… a lively living being, consistent with the identity of the populations living in the managed territory.

Acre government’s description of the map-making process after the addition of a cultural-political axis or ‘ethno-zoning’

Want to emulate that success in your own MSF?

Researchers and others at the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), along with partners in diverse organisations and locations around the world, have been exploring how MSFs might better achieve their goals in the future, within their Governance, Equity and Wellbeing programme. They’ve found a number of conceptual and practical measures to better take these social dimensions into account.

Find out more in this short video:


Practical fact sheets designed for you

To support participants and implementers in this multifaceted process of making MSPs more equitable and effective, CIFOR-ICRAF has produced a series of simple, accessible infosheets and ‘how-to’ guides. “We often take too much for granted in MSPs,” says author Anne Larson. “Some considerations are simple – like changing where the platform is held, or adjusting seating arrangements; and some require deeper strategic thinking. Our research has unearthed a host of practical steps that convenors can take to help empower marginalised stakeholders and create lasting impact.”

Click any image below to download its factsheet pdf.

A place at the table is not enough: Accountability for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in multi-stakeholder platforms

This article explores the challenges of achieving equity in multi-stakeholder platforms and forums (MSFs) focused on sustainable land and resource governance. Drawing on a comparative study of 11 subnational MSFs in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru, the article examines the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) who participate in these forums. The research aims to understand how MSFs can ensure voice, empowerment, and address inequality, while being accountable to the needs and interests of IPLCs. The findings highlight the optimism of IPLC participants but also reveal accountability failures. The article argues for greater strategic attention to how marginalized groups perceive their participation in MSFs and proposes ways to foster collective action and hold more powerful actors accountable to achieve equality, empowerment, and justice.
Download from CIFOR

Introduction – Multi-stakeholder forums and the promise of more equitable and sustainable land and resource use: perspectives from Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru

This Special Issue of the International Forestry Review presents a multi-country comparative research project by CIFOR, exploring the potential of multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) as participatory mechanisms for sustainable land and resource use. The seven papers analyse power inequalities inherent in MSFs and discuss their capacity for equitable decision-making. While approaching MSFs from different perspectives, the papers emphasize the need for transformative MSFs that go beyond mere participation to achieve meaningful change.
Download from CIFOR

The costs of elite-oriented multi-stakeholder forums to address deforestation: the case of the Green Municipalities Program in the Brazilian Amazon

This article examines the Green Municipalities Program (PMV) in Pará state, Brazil, a multi-stakeholder forum aimed at combating deforestation. Through qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews, it critiques the program's strategy of collaborating with powerful sectors while excluding indigenous and grassroots organizations. The research highlights the limitations of "anti-politics" approaches that fail to address underlying causes of environmental problems and raises concerns about the legitimacy of initiatives perceived as unjust in unequal contexts.
Published by CIFOR

Multistakeholder platforms for natural resource governance: lessons from eight landscape-level cases

A comparative analysis of eight landscape-level multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) across seven countries, examining their influence on stakeholder interactions and offering insights for effective MSP design and organization. Lessons learned include the importance of aligning MSPs with the governance context, promoting inclusive processes to address power inequities, and supporting adaptive learning for long-term impact through outcome monitoring, expanded stakeholder engagement, and investment in MSP durability.

Organizing for transformation? How and why organizers plan their multi-stakeholder forums

This article investigates the alignment of multi-stakeholder forum (MSF) organizers' plans and expectations with previous lessons on "invited spaces" regarding power relations and contextual considerations. Analysing 13 subnational MSFs in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru, the study reveals that while organizers aimed to include historically disempowered groups, they often overlooked addressing power inequalities and lacked strategies to engage with unsustainable local development and political priorities.
Download from CIFOR

Politics and power in territorial planning: insights from two ‘Ecological-Economic Zoning’ multi-stakeholder processes in the Brazilian Amazon

Multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) in territorial planning aim to foster collaborative and equitable land use development. However, conflicts and asymmetries can arise, potentially exacerbating existing issues. Through a comparative analysis of Ecological-Economic Zoning commissions in Acre and Mato Grosso, Brazil, this paper demonstrates that viewing MSFs as political processes rooted in powerful local social-environmental movements and alliances increases their effectiveness in achieving sustainability goals, as opposed to facing opposition from production-business alliances.
Download from CIFOR

The role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions: Methods training manual and tools for in-depth research

CIFOR's Methods Training Manual for in-depth field research examines multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) addressing land use in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru. It highlights the potential and pitfalls of MSFs, emphasizing the need for genuine participation. This timely research aims to contribute empirically to understanding MSFs and their role in addressing climate change and development trajectories.
Published by CIFOR